1 of 77

Under The Supervision of :-

Mr. A.P Mishra

“Distillation Syrup Diversion”

Compiled By :-

Mr. Md Aquib Wakeel Khan

Mr. Hardik Tyagi

Mr. Avinash Mishra

Ms. Shalini Gupta

Mr. Shikhar Upadhyay

2 of 77

Project Outline’s

  • Objectives of the project
  • Overview of ethanol production
  • Raw material analysis
  • Ethanol synthesis block diagram
  • Existing Technology
  • Comparative flow chart of

B-Heavy V/s Syrup Diversion

  • Diversion analysis
  • Technological advancement
  • Comparative analysis
  • Conclusion
  • Suggestion
  • References

​

3 of 77

Objectives of the project

  • Development of the feasible and efficient alternate route for the production of ethanol by using cane syrup.
  • Study about the advancement in technology which is used for ethanol production other than DSML.
  • Study about the technology and their operating parameters which are used in DSML.
  • Identify the gaps between advancement and current technology by analyzing the collected data.
  • Study about the gaps for modification in current technology. Minimize the gap to enhance the productivity.
  • Analyzing the future perspective and environmental constraint of the modified technology.

​

​

4 of 77

Government Policy

  • The Indian government on December 18,2020, proposed to adopt E20 fuel .
  • E20 fuel is a blend of 20% of ethanol and gasoline.
  • Government is encouraging sugar mills and molasses based distilleries to enhance their ethanol distillation capacity.
  • The average all-India ethanol blending percentage as on 25.01.2021 is 6.45%.
  • For achieving blending targets, government has allowed production of ethanol from sugarcane juice, sugar syrup and B-heavy molasses.
  • Sugar mills/ distilleries have been advised to utilize at least 85% of their existing installed capacity to produce ethanol.

​

[9]

5 of 77

PROPERTIES

VALUES

State

Liquid

Colour

Colourless

Smell

Specific

Molecular weight

46.07 g/mol

Melting point/ Freezing point

-173.4 °F

Flash point

55 °F

Boiling point

173.3 °F @ 760 mm Hg

Specific gravity

0.780-0.796 @ 293 °F – 68 °F

Vapour density

1.59 g/mL

Viscosity

1.074 mPa-s @ 298 °F

Ethanol Properties

[11]

6 of 77

Overview of ethanol synthesis

S. No.

MOLASSES (SUCROSE) (Kg)

WATER (Kg)

GLUCOSE (Kg)

FRUCTOSE (Kg)

1

1

0.053

0.5265

0.5265

2

1000

53

526.5

526.5

 

 

 

 

INVERTASE

+

+

7 of 77

S. No.

GLUCOSE (Kg)

ETHANOL (Kg)

CARBON DIOXIDE (Kg)

DENSITY OF ETHANOL (Kg/L)

1

2.00

1.05

0.95

0.796

2

1053

552.82

500.17

 

 

 

ZYMASE

+

 

8 of 77

Raw material analysis

Sugarcane Syrup

S. No.

 Particulars

UOM

Unsulphited

Sulphited

1

 Brix of the Material

 %

65.04

66.40

2

 Purity of the material

 %

84.47

84.07

3

pH

-

6.44

5.32

4

 Reducing Sugars (RS)

 %

3.56

3.64

5

 Un Fermentable Sugars (UFS)

 %

1.0

1.2

6

 Fermentation Efficiency (FE)

 %

 90

90

7

 Distillation Efficiency (DE)

 %

 98.5

98.5

8

 Sucrose % (Pol)

 %

54.94

55.82

9

 Total Reducing sugars (TRS)

 %

58.19

56.60

10

 Fermentable sugars (FS )

 %

57.19

55.40

11

 Yield of Ethanol

 L/MT

308.41

299.98

9 of 77

RAW MATERIAL ANLAYSIS

Particulars

Units

B-Heavy

C-Heavy

Capacity

KLPD

350

350

Ethanol Production

L

304563

239104

Molasses Consumption

q

10250

10500

Wash Distilled

L

2772000

2300000

Wash Made

L

2862000

2450000

Molasses TRS

%

56.05

42.96

Un-fermentable Sugar

%

3.85

6.00

Reducing Sugar

%

1.60

2.19

Fermentable Sugar

%

52.20

36.96

Recovery

L/q

29.71

22.77

Fermentation Efficiency

%

89.84

85.90

Distillation Efficiency

%

98.00

98.07

Overall Efficiency

%

88.04

84.24

Alcohol in wash

%

11.20

10.59

Steam Consumption

Kg/L

2.25

2.80

Spent Wash Generation

L

2104402

1746839

Spent Wash Generation

Per L R.S

6.32

6.94 

 Yield of Ethanol

 L/MT

297.1

227.7

Sugar loss

%

1.52

2.00 

10 of 77

Ethanol Synthesis block diagram

Sugarcane

Drying

Crystallization

Juice concentration

Juice treatment

Reception

Preparation

Extraction of sugar

Fermentation

Distillation,

Rectification

Juice treatment

Juice concentration

Cogeneration unit

Anhydrous ethanol

Dehydration

Sugar product

99.9%

Molasses

Bagasse

[1]

11 of 77

EXISTING TECHNOLOGY IN DSML

Molasses (B / C)

Fermentation

Distillation

Inoculum propagation

Ethanol

Spent Wash

Evaporator

12 of 77

FERMENTATION

13 of 77

FACTORS AFFECTING FERMENTATION

F

INOCULATION RATIO

(1:3)

TEMPERATURE (32-35)

pH (4.2-4.5)

DILUTION RATIO

B-heavy

(1:1.5)

C-heavy

(1:1.25)

14 of 77

TYPES OF YEAST USED IN DSML

DRY YEAST

CULTURE YEAST

15 of 77

Block diagram

DISTILLATION

D

I

L

U

T

E

R

CV (Yeast activation)

PF

PF

FERMENTER

BUFFER

TANK

DRAIN

CST

DECANTER

SLUDGE

DRAIN

DRAIN

Borewell

 

Air header

Nutrients

Nutrients

Nutrients

Nutrients

Ethanol production using dry yeast

Molasses Day Tank

 

 

 

16 of 77

Process flow diagram

6

7

MOLASSES STORAGE TANKS

BH

CH

CH

MOLASSES HEADER

MOLASSES PIT

MOLASSES UNLOADING POINT

PUMP NO. 2

PUMP NO. 4

PUMP NO. 3

ABSORBER INTER

COOLER

WEIGHING MACHINE

20 QTLS

1

MOLASSES FROM

SUGAR SECTION

TANK I

MANUAL WEIGHING MACHINE FOR CALIBRATION

MOLASSES

STORAGE

TANK

(SUGAR SECTION)

TRANSFER LINE TO

FERMENTATION

SECTION

MOLASSES

STORAGE

TANK

BH

PUMP NO. 1

8

17 of 77

25 QTL

MOLASSES TANK

1

2

3

4

5

WEIGHING

MACHINE

FRESH WATER HEADER LINE

MOLASSES PUMP

FRESH WATER PUMP

MOLASSES HEADER

LINE

DILUTER

FEED HEADER

WORT LINE

WORT LINE

FEED

PUMP

MOLASSES BYPASS

LINE

WORT TANK

PF & ALL VESSELS

5LAC II

2.5LAC III & IV

5LAC I

2.5LAC VI

5LAC III

6LAC

2.5LAC V

4LAC

2.5LAC II

2.5LAC I

MOLASSES FROM STORAGE TANK

DIRECT

FEED

LINE TO

PF

WORT HEADER

FRESH WATER FROM

TUBE WELL

ACID LINE

STEAM LINE

OVER FLOW BYPASS

LINE

STEAM FROM

BOILER

18 of 77

FRESH WATER LINE

WORT FEED LINE

STEAM LINE

AIR LINE

COOLING

WATER IN

COOLING

WATER OUT

COOLING

WATER IN

COOLING

WATER IN

COOLING

WATER OUT

COOLING

WATER OUT

TRANSFER LINE

TRANSFER LINE

TRANSFER LINE TO PF

INOCULUM

SPARGER

SPARGER

SPARGER

CLEANING WATER

DRAIN

CLEANING WATER

DRAIN

CLEANING WATER

DRAIN

NUTRIENTS,

ENZYME,

ACID,

ANTIFOAM,

BACTERICIDE

NUTRIENTS,

ENZYME,

ACID,

ANTIFOAM,

BACTERICIDE

NUTRIENTS,

ENZYME,

ACID,

ANTIFOAM,

BACTERICIDE

C1

C2

C5

V14

V1

V2

V5

V15

V3

V4

V6

V16

CULTURE VESSELS

 

19 of 77

AIR LINE

AIR SPARGER

TRANSFER LINE TO PRE-FERMENTER (IA/IB/IIA/IIB) OR FERMENTER (6LAC, 5LAC I, 5LAC II, 5LAC III)

FEED LINE FROM DILUTER

TRANSFER LINE FROM

CULTURE VESSELS

FRESH WATER LINE

COOLING RING

PRE-FERMENTERS

PRE FERMENTER PF1/PF2/PF3/PF4/PF5/PF6

SAMPLE VALVE

DRAIN

 

20 of 77

PRE-FERMENTERS (I A/I B/II A/II B)

AIR/STEAM LINE

WATER FROM

COOLING TOWER

WATER TO

COOLING TOWER

PHE

CIRCULATION

PUMP

FEED FROM DILUTER

TRANSFER LINE

FROM PF

MUD/CLEANING WATER

DRAIN

TRANSFER LINE TO

FERMENTERS

WATER LINE

FOR CLEANING

SPARGER

21 of 77

FERMENTATION TANK (2.5Lac I/2.5Lac II/2.5LacIII/2.5Lac IV/2.5Lac V/2.5Lac VI/4Lac/5Lac I/5 Lac II/5Lac III/6Lac)

STEAM LINE

WATER FROM

COOLING TOWER

WATER TO

COOLING TOWER

PHE

CIRCULATION

PUMP

FEED FROM DILUTER

TRANSFER LINE FROM PF

MUD/CLEANING WATER DRAIN

WASH TRANSFER

LINE TO WASH TANK

CO2 OUTLET

WATER LINE

FOR CLEANING

SPARGER

22 of 77

Chemical Dosing

FERMENTER

CAPACITY

(L)

ENZYME

(Kg)

UREA

(Kg)

DAP

(Kg)

SULFURIC ACID

ANTIFOAM

(L)

2.5 Lac I

250000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

2.5 Lac II

250000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

2.5 Lac III

250000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

2.5 Lac IV

300000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

2.5 Lac V

200000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

2.5 Lac VI

300000

1.25

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

4 Lac

400000

2

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

5 Lac I

475000

2.5

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

5 Lac II

475000

2.5

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

5 Lac III

475000

2.5

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR

6 Lac

525000

3

10

10

2-3 min(ACR)

2-3 (ACR)

23 of 77

DISTILLATION

24 of 77

Hybrid MPRD + MSDH

[8]

25 of 77

Literature review

Parameter

Atmospheric Distillation

Multi-Pressure Distillation

Molecular Sieve Dehydration

Hybrid MPRD + MSD

Product

Extra Neutral Alcohol

Extra Neutral Alcohol

Anhydrous Ethanol (Fuel Grade)

Anhydrous Ethanol (Fuel Grade)

No. of Distillation Column Required Steam

7

7

0

3

Adsorption Column

7

2

0

1

No. of Adsorption Column Required Steam

0

0

2

2

Enrichment of Ethanol (From to To)%

10-96.5

10-96.5

96.5-99.8

10-99.8

Steam Requirement Kg/litre Ethanol

5.8

3.2

0.6

2

​

1.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Flash Steam Generation

No

Yes

No

Yes

Heat Integration

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

26 of 77

Literature review

Parameter

Hybrid MPRD + MSD

Product

Anhydrous Ethanol (Fuel Grade)

No. of Distillation Column Required Steam

3

Adsorption Column

1

No. of Adsorption Column Required Steam

2

Enrichment of Ethanol (From to To)%

10-99.8

Steam Requirement Kg/litre Ethanol

2

Steam Properties Requirement (kg/cm^2) at 148 °C�

3.5

Flash Steam Generation

Yes

Heat Integration

Yes

[8]

27 of 77

Standard operating parameters

Column

​

Operating Temperature (°C)

Top

Bottom

Top

Bottom

Analyser

0.47

0.55

73

82

Degasser

0.45

0.47

72

73

Pre-Rectifier

2.2

2.42

98

125

Purifying

0.5

0.68

81

82

Rectifier

2.2

2.49

98

127

Recovery

1.013

1.213

78

105

Simmering

1.013

1.213

78

83

28 of 77

Zeolite Structure

[8]

29 of 77

Excel plant capacity

R.S (Rectified Spirit)

E.N.A (Extra Neutral Alcohol)

Ethanol

120 KLPD

126 KLPD

200 KLPD

30 of 77

ABBREVIATION USED

  • RC C-501 = Recovery column
  • D & MS = Degasser & mash stripper
  • RS-RC C-413 = Rectified spirit rectifying column
  • ENA-RC C-451 = Extra neutral alcohol rectifying column
  • ED C-441 = Purifying column
  • SM C-461 = Refining column
  • RCDC C-471 = Recovery cum deoil column
  • MSDH = Molecular sieve dehydration
  • H = Shell and tube heat exchanger
  • P = Plate heat exchanger
  • R = Reflux tank
  • RB = Re-Boiler
  • T = Feed tank
  • V = Vacuum drum
  • S.W.K.E = Spent wash to K.B.K Evaporator
  • SLC = Spent lees to condensate processing unit
  • STC = Steam condensate to condensate tank T-417
  • B = Drain
  • S = Steam from steam header line
  • WK = Weak alcohol
  • N = Vent to atmosphere
  • F.O = Fusel oil outlet

31 of 77

STC

72°C

0.25

​

​

​

M.S

​

​

​

​

86°C

0.70

​

48 °C

0.38

​

RS-R.C

​

​

​

67 °C

0.18

​

​

80 °C

0.57

104°C

2.6

​

​

DC

​

​

110°C

0.27

​

​

​

128°C

2.8

​

​

68 °C

0.44

89 °C

1.00

​

​

ED

​

92 °C

0.35

​

​

​

​

98 °C

1.35

96 °C

2.14

​

​

ENA-RC

​

98 °C

0.21

​

​

​

​

123 °C

2.35

​

77 °C

​

​

​

​

​

SM

​

​

​

​

​

​

80 °C

​

104 °C

2.88

​

​

​

​

​

RC

​

106°C

​

​

​

​

​

​

128 °C

115 °C

1.55

​

​

MSDH-A

​

116 °C

​

​

​

118 °C

1.68

118 °C

0.37

​

​

MSDH-R

​

121 °C

​

​

​

128 °C

0.25

RB

RB

RB

RB

RB

RB

RB

H

P

H

R

H

D

H

D

W

R

H

H

T

H

R

T

P

P

H

H

P

H

D

H

D

T

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

R

V

54000 LPH

65 ºC

10 % A

F.W

42000 LPH

87 ºC

9958 LPH

95 ºC

96. 2 % A

S.W.K.E

6316 LPH

80 ºC

0 % A

10084 LPH

56 ºC

95 % A

12000 LPH

67 ºC

45% A

SLC

4400 LPH

71 ºC

95% A

40336 LPH

104 ºC

0.09 % A

RS-KBK

N

ETHANOL

E.N.A

STC

B

B

B

B

B

STC

STC

S

S

S

S

S

STC

28000 LPH

100 ºC

0 % A

12000 LPH

81 ºC

0 % A

4000 LPH

21 ºC

96.2 % A

40000 LPH

89 ºC

0 % A

5958 LPH

78 ºC

0 % A

126 LPH

123 ºC

0 % A

40336 LPH

104 ºC

0.09 % A

4400 LPH

103 ºC

95% A

10084 LPH

98 ºC

95 % A

9958 LPH

95 ºC

96. 2 % A

7500 LPH

102 ºC

95 % A

7068 LPH

135 ºC

95 % A

6741.56 LPH

78 ºC

99.6 % A

326.44 LPH

112 ºC

80 % A

432 LPH

90 ºC

0 % A

WK

F.O

F.O

  • Red = Alcohol vapor
  • Black = Steam
  • White = DM water, cooling water, soft water, steam condensate, spent lees, Fusel oil (High & Low)
  • Green = Fermented wash, spent wash

32 of 77

Overall Excel steam calculation

S. No.

Equipment

Steam consumption (TPH)

Steam condensate (TPH)

1

E.N.A rectifying column- C451

8.800

8.800

2

Recovery column- C501 (MSDH-I)

2.900

2.900

3

Molecular sieve bed dehydration

(MSDH-II)/(D501 A & B)

0.500

0.500

4

Purifying column- C441

2.000

2.000

5

Recovery cum de-oil column- C471

1.720

1.720

Total

15.920

15.920

Loss

0

Loss %

0

33 of 77

K.B.K & Praj plant capacity

R.S (Rectified Spirit)

(K.B.K)

Ethanol

(PRAJ)

180 KLPD

150 KLPD

34 of 77

ABBREVIATION USED

  • E.C = Evaporator column
  • MS = Degasser & mash stripper
  • RC = Rectified spirit rectifying column
  • D.A = De-aldehyde column
  • D.F = Defusel column
  • MSDH = Molecular sieve dehydration
  • H = Shell and tube heat exchanger
  • P = Plate heat exchanger
  • r = Reflux tank
  • RB = Re-Boiler
  • T = Tank

​

​

  • V = Vapor liquid separator
  • Z = Vacuum drum
  • Q = Super heater
  • S.W.K.E = Spent wash to K.B.K Evaporator
  • SLC = Spent lees to condensate processing unit
  • L = Liquid separator
  • S = Vapor separator
  • F = Filter
  • E = Vacuum educator
  • C = Condenser

35 of 77

​

​

73°C

0.23

​

​

​

​

M.S

​

​

​

​

95°C

0.10

​

​

78 °C

0.25

62 °C

0.45

​

​

​

​

​

R.C

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

92 °C

0.21

74 °C

0.01

​

​

​

​

​

D.A

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

92 °C

0.06

83 °C

0.31

​

​

​

​

​

D.F

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

109°C

0.40

91 °C

1.650

​

​

​

​

​

E.C

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

93 °C

1.703

115 °C

1.59

​

​

MSDH-A

​

128 °C

​

​

​

123 °C

1.55

117 °C

0.20

​

​

MSDH-B

​

126 °C

​

​

​

122 °C

0.15

H

H

R

R

R

R

R

L

S

H

H

H

r

H

l

h

D

H

T

T

T

H

H

r

H

T

H

r

H

D

H

T

Z

P

V

V

V

V

V

R

Q

C

H

H

E

H

T

r

P

F

F

H

F

S.W.K.E 53436 LPH

Ethanol

5500 LPH

99.8 % A

SLC

324 LPH

60000 LPH

64 ºC

11 % A

Vent

6564 LPH

Vent

Vent

SLC

16561.5 LPH

SLC

405.536 LPH

SLC

10.625 LPH

5500 LPH

84 ºC

95 % A

2020 LPH

80 % A

  • Red = Alcohol vapor
  • Black = Steam
  • White = DM water, cooling water, soft water, steam condensate, spent lees, Fusel oil (High & Low)
  • Green = Fermented wash, spent wash

36 of 77

Overall K.B.K & Praj steam calculation

S. No.

Equipment

Steam consumption (TPH)

Steam condensate (TPH)

1

Analyzer Column C-1

7.800

7.800

2

Rectifying Column C-3

2.400

2.400

3

Dealdehyde Column C-4

1.500

1.500

4

Defusel Column C-8

0.500

0.500

5

Evaporator column- C1601

2.600

2.600

6

Super Heater

0.200

0.200

Total

15.000

15.000

Loss

0

Loss %

0

37 of 77

SPENT WASH

  • Spent wash is the main waste stream of distillery.
  • It has BOD of about 30,000 to 60,000 mg/litre.
  • COD of about 1,00,000 mg/litre.
  • PH: 4-5(Acidic)
  • About 15% Solid content.
  • Ash contains Potash as K2O.

SUGAR MILL

SUGARCANE

SUGAR

BAGASSE

DISTILLERY

ALCOHOL

SPENT WASH

38 of 77

SPENT WASH GENERATION FROM C-HEAVY MOLASSES

  • By material balance:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

  • Spent wash % = 77.75 %
  • Spent wash generation per litre of alcohol = 7.65 litres.

​

DEGASSIFIER COLUMN

​

FERMENTED WASH

100 M3

ALCOHOL – 10.2 M3

OTHER – 89.8 M3

ALCOHOL- 1.02 M3

OTHER- 0.83 M3

ANALYZER COLUMN

FERMENTED WASH-98.15 M3

ALCOHOL – 9.18 M3

OTHER – 88.97 M3

ALCOHOL – 9.18 M3

OTHER- 11.22 M3

SPENT WASH – 77.75 M3

39 of 77

SPENT WASH GENERATION FROM B-HEAVY MOLASSES

  • By material balance:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

  • Spent wash % = 73.82%
  • Spent wash generation per litre of alcohol = 6.15 litres.

​

​

DEGASSIFIER COLUMN

​

FERMENTED WASH

100 M3

ALCOHOL - 12 M3

OTHER – 88 M3

ALCOHOL - 1.2 M3

OTHER - 0.98 M3

ANALYZER COLUMN

FERMENTED WASH-97.82 M3

ALCOHOL - 10.8 M3

OTHER - 87.02 M3

ALCOHOL - 10.8 M3

OTHER - 13.2 M3

SPENT WASH – 73.82 M3

40 of 77

SPENT WASH GENERATION FROM SYRUP

  • By material balance

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

  • Spent wash % = 71.94%
  • Spent wash generation per litre of alcohol = 5.59 litres.

​

​

DEGASSIFIER COLUMN

​

FERMENTED WASH

100 M3

ALCOHOL - 12.86 M3

OTHER - 87.14 M3

ALCOHOL - 1.286 M3

OTHER - 1.052 M3

ANALYZER COLUMN

FERMENTED WASH-97.66 M3

ALCOHOL - 11.57 M3

OTHER - 86.09 M3

ALCOHOL - 11.574 M3

OTHER - 14.146 M3

SPENT-WASH - 71.94 M3

41 of 77

Comparative flow chart of b-heavy v/S SYRUP DIVERSION

Raw Material

B-Heavy

Syrup

  • PF
  • WORT

Fermenter

Fermenter

Wash

Wash

Decanter

Decanter

Distillation

Distillation

Ethanol

Spent Wash

Evaporator

Ethanol

​

Spent Wash

​

Evaporator

  • PF
  • WORT

20%-30% Spent wash recycle

42 of 77

Diversion Analysis

Before Diversion

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

syrup

59.86

82.96

30.15

B heavy

89.78

54

7.45

C heavy

92

30

4.78

Recovery % Cane

11.36

Sugar Recovery

13,06,581.08

Kg

43 of 77

Effect of Diversion

At 10 %

At 20 %

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

Syrup

59.86

82.96

27.13

B heavy

89.78

54

6.70

C heavy

92

30

4.30

Recovery % Cane

​

10.23

Sugar Recovery

11,75,922.97

Kg

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

Syrup

59.86

82.96

24.12

B heavy

89.78

54

5.96

C heavy

92

30

3.82

Recovery % Cane

​

9.09

Sugar Recovery

10,45,264.86

Kg

44 of 77

Effect of Diversion

At 30 %

At 40 %

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

Syrup

59.86

82.96

21.10

B heavy

89.78

54

5.21

C heavy

92

30

3.34

Recovery % Cane

7.95

Sugar Recovery

9,14,606.76

Kg

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

Syrup

59.86

82.96

18.09

B heavy

89.78

54

4.47

C heavy

92

30

2.87

Recovery % Cane

6.82

Sugar Recovery

7,83,948.65

Kg

45 of 77

Effect of Diversion

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

syrup

59.86

82.96

15.07

B heavy

89.78

54

3.72

C heavy

92

30

2.39

Recovery % Cane

5.68

Sugar Recovery

6,53,290.54

Kg

At 50 %

At 60 %

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

syrup

59.86

82.96

12.06

B heavy

89.78

54

2.98

C heavy

92

30

1.91

Recovery % Cane

4.54

Sugar Recovery

5,22,632.43

Kg

46 of 77

Effect of Diversion

Cane crushing

11500

Ton

TCH

479.17

Material

Bx

Pty

% Cane

Clear juice

14.21

83.81

127

syrup

59.86

82.96

9.04

B heavy

89.78

54

2.23

C heavy

92

30

1.43

Recovery % Cane

3.41

Sugar Recovery

3,91,974.32

Kg

At 70 %

47 of 77

COMPARISION

Without Diversion

After Diversion

Sugar Cost (in Rs.)

Alcohol (From B-Heavy Molasses) Cost (in Rs.)

Total (in Rs.)

%

Sugar Cost (in Rs.)

Alcohol (From Sugar Syrup) Cost (in Rs.)

Alcohol (From B-Heavy Molasses) Cost (in Rs.)

Total (in Rs.)

Comparison

Profit/Loss

41810594.56

2,34,75,626.40

65286220.96

10

37629535.1

7080610.08

13606473.1

58316618.24

-69,69,602.72

Loss

20

33448475.65

14161220.17

12094642.7

59704338.54

-5581882.421

30

29267416.19

21241830.25

10582812.4

61092058.82

-4194162.141

40

25086356.74

28322440.34

9070982.04

62479779.12

-2806441.841

50

20905297.28

35403050.42

7559151.7

63867499.4

-1418721.561

60

16724237.82

42483660.51

6047321.36

65255219.69

-31001.27067

70

12543178.37

49564270.59

4535491.02

66642939.98

1356719.019

Profit

48 of 77

49 of 77

Technological advancement in future for energy conservation

50 of 77

Advancement in concentrating of sugar juice

Feed

Technology

Specification

Description

Condition

Sugar juice

Sweeper gas membrane distillation

Cold inert gas or air stream is used as carrier for stripping the molecules.

  • Mostly practical for concentrating purposes.
  • Condensation happen outside the module.

​

[6]

51 of 77

Control Panel

Feed Tank

TIC

TIC

PIC

Flow meter

Refrigerant Out

Compressor

Flow meter

Membrane module

Product Tank

To vent

Refrigerant In

Dry air in

Schematic diagram of juice concentration

PIC

TIC

PIC

PIC

TIC

Product Tank

[6]

52 of 77

1. Advancement in fermentation

S. No.

Raw material

Fungi

Process

% Yield

1

Cane syrup

Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3-1042

Batch

82.75

2

Cane syrup

Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3-1042

Fed batch

92.8

90.4

3

Cane syrup

Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3-1042

Repeated batch

89.6

Advancement

Time (hrs.)

pH

​

It is non sterile fermentation process along with stirrer by using thermo-tolerant yeast

72

4.5

35

[1]

53 of 77

A. Batch process

 

Cane syrup

Ethanol

Yield – 82.73 %

 

[1]

54 of 77

B. Fed-batch

 

 

Cane syrup

Ethanol

Yield – 92.8 % - Exponential Feeding

Yield – 90.4 % - Sigmoidal Feeding

[1]

55 of 77

Comparison

S. No.

Exponential feeding

Sigmoidal feeding

a)

Low yeast growth throughout the process.

​

All parameters are improved.

b)

High level sugar remained in the system which suppressed the continue growth of the yeast and weakening the activity of the culture.

Yeast grow throughout the process.

[1]

56 of 77

C. Repeated batch process

 

 

Cane syrup

Ethanol

Yield – 86.9%

 

 

[1]

57 of 77

Continuous Fermentation Technology used in Brazil

Molasses

Juice

Water

Heat Exchanger

Wort

Tank 1

Yeast Treatment

Recycled Yeast

Yeast cream

Raw wine

Centrifugation

Tank of wine

Sulphuric acid

Water

Heat Exchanger

Tank 2

Tank 3

Tank 4

Distillation

[4]

[4]

58 of 77

Molasses

Juice

Water

Wort

Water + Acid

Raw wine

Centrifugation

Heat Exchanger

Distillation

Fermentation Tank

Tank of wine

Yeast cream

Recycled Yeast

Fed-batch Fermentation Technology used in Brazil

[4]

59 of 77

Advancement in Dehydration

Dehydration Technology

Energy Consumption

Steam pressure

(bar / vacuum)

​

​

​

Pervaporation

110

34.5

124.5

2.5

[2,3]

60 of 77

Hydrophobic membrane used in pervaporation

S. No.

Membrane material

Fermentation time (hrs.)

1

Silicate-silicon mixed-matrix

48

2

Silicon rubber

24

[4]

61 of 77

Hydrophilic membrane used in pervaporation

S. No.

Membrane material

Separation factor

1

Zeolite

10000

2

Polymer (Polyvinyl alcohol and Polyamide)

1600

3

Composite (chitosan (CS) blended with hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) using cellulose acetate as a porous support by Jiraratananon)

10500

[4]

62 of 77

Pervaporation of fermented wash directly

Syrup /

Syrup + Molasses

Fermenter

Carbon dioxide gas

Retentate (dehydrated ethanol)

Hydrophilic

Pervaporation

Hydrophobic

pervaporation

Microfiltration

Retentate

Bleed

Water

Enriched

permeate

Ethanol

Enriched

permeate

[3]

63 of 77

Ethanol purification via dephlegmation coupled with pervaporation

Syrup /

Syrup + Molasses

Fermenter

Carbon dioxide gas

Anhydrous ethanol–99+ wt. %

Hydrophilic

Pervaporation

Hydrophobic

pervaporation

filtration

0.5 wt. % ethanol to recycle

5 wt. % ethanol recycle

30-40 wt. % ethanol vapor

20 wt % ethanol vapor

Dephlegmator

90-95 wt. % ethanol

Filtered biomass feed with 10 wt. % ethanol

[3]

64 of 77

Ethanol purification via distillation coupled with pervaporation

Syrup /

Syrup + Molasses

Fermenter

Carbon dioxide gas

Anhydrous ethanol–99.7 wt. %

Hydrophilic

Pervaporation

Hydrophobic

pervaporation

filtration

Water with ethanol–0.1 wt. %

Ethanol–90 wt. %

Permeate vapor

9 wt. % ethanol

Overhead vapor 64.7 wt. % ethanol

Liquid reflux 57 wt. % ethanol

Distillation column

Feed 11.5 wt. % ethanol

[3]

65 of 77

Advancement in distillation

[2]

66 of 77

Tray used in cyclic distillation

Actual view of tray

67 of 77

CYCLIC DISTILLATION WORKING

68 of 77

Comparative analysis

Dehydration technology

Energy consumption

Steam pressure used in the process (bar)

​

​

​

Absorption on molecular sieve

550

19

432.5

10

Pervaporation

110

34.5

124.5

2.5

Yield of Ethanol from C Heavy Molasses in litre/Ton

Yield of Ethanol from B Heavy Molasses in litre/Ton

Yield of Ethanol from syrup in litre/Ton (Assumption)

227.7

297.1

299.98

Ethanol from sugarcane/sugar/sugar syrup

Ethanol from B-heavy molasses

Ethanol from C-heavy molasses

₹ 62.65/Lit

₹ 57.61/Lit

₹ 45.6/Lit

[3,10]

69 of 77

Techno-economical advantages

  • High tray efficiencies (140-200% Murphree efficiency), thus reduced equipment cost.
  • Higher throughput and equipment productivity than conventional distillation.
  • Reduced energy requirements (20-35% savings), thus lower operating costs.
  • Increased quality of the products due to the higher separation efficiency.
  • 20-50% lower investment cost (due to lower column height; smaller column diameter; smaller area of the heat exchangers; less steel construction; less space used).
  • 20-35% lower hot utility usage (due to high mass transfer efficiency; reduction of the reflux rate).
  • 20-35% lower cold utility usage (lower reflux rate).
  • Improvement of product quality (high mass transfer efficiency; higher concentration of key product).
  • Increase of product yield (high mass transfer efficiency; more concentrated impurities or other fractions).
  • Enhanced process sustainability (less GHG emissions due to lower energy usage).

​

70 of 77

Techno-economical advantages

  • Mass transfer efficiency of 1 cyclic distillation tray is equal to 3 classic trays
  • Reduction of the residence time of liquid in the column, and uniform arrangement of liquid on the tray
  • Ability to control the amount of liquid on the tray, and the reaction time (in case of reactive distillation)
  • Any geometric configuration of the trays (allows the possibility to build dividing wall columns with trays)
  • The separation efficiency does not depend on the column diameter, thus easy industrial scale-up.
  • Placement of any type of packing between the trays further increases the mass transfer efficiency
  • The pressure drop in the column does not depend on the liquid load in the column, since the amount of liquid on the trays is constant, and only the frequency of cycles is changed (range: 1-30 m3/m2hr liq. load)
  • The vapor velocity in the column typically ranges 0.2-20 m/s, as it depends on the pressure in the column.
  • The operation remains stable and efficient in case of changed concentrations of the key components

71 of 77

CONCLUSION

  • Higher output against lower annual demand add ups to country’s swelling stockpiles.
  • Its fundamental economic principle that when supply exceeds demand for a goods or services, prices fall.
  • Exports are must to avoid a crash in domestic prices & exports are not possible without a subsidy by government.
  • Sugarcane farmer’s dues have increased due to lower capability of sugar industry to pay farmers.
  • Current distillation DSML technology is the latest technology which are feasible on industrial scale in India while the above mention technology are beneficial for energy conservation which indirectly save the money if they are implemented.
  • Syrup diversion gives profit only when above 60% syrup is diverted.
  • Syrup diversion gives 7.25 % more ethanol than the B-Heavy molasses due to high value of total reducing sugar (T.R.S – 58.19) along with low value of un-fermentable sugar(U.F.S – 1.2).

​

72 of 77

Conclusion

  • It also give 2.55 % less spent wash than B-Heavy molasses.
  • 20%-30% spent wash recycle back in fermentation due to its lower brix.
  • Steam consumption is also low in distillation process in the case of syrup diversion.
  • Energy and steam also save in boiling and drying house when syrup is diverted.
  • Higher output against lower annual demand add ups to country’s swelling stockpiles.
  • Its fundamental economic principle that when supply exceeds demand for a goods or services, prices fall.
  • Exports are must to avoid a crash in domestic prices & exports are not possible without a subsidy by government.
  • Sugarcane farmer’s dues have increased due to lower capability of sugar industry to pay farmers.

​

​

73 of 77

Suggestion

  • Fermentation plant must be renovate in order to minimize the losses due to leakage and contamination (such as bacterial contamination due to acetobacter and lactobacillus).Fermenter and transfer lines should be clean by using caustic along with steam and formalin in order to avoid bacterial contamination.
  • Addition of mixture of enzymes which convert un-fermentable sugar into fermentable sugar such as depolymerizing enzymes (alpha amylse, glucoamylase, cellulose, xylanase and alpha galactosidase) and xylose isomerase which increase yield by 5%.Sugar crystal should be removed from molasses when it is transferred into dilutor to avoid fluctuation in specific gravity.
  • P.H.E should be replaced by new one in order to minimize the losses and improve the preheating process.
  • Instrument air compressor drier should be repaired in order to remove the moisture from the air and increase the life of control valves.

74 of 77

References

  1. L. Savitree, Y. Wichien, P. Podchamarn; “Bioethanol production from sugar cane syrup by thermo-tolerant yeast, Kluyveromyces marxianus DMKU3-1042, using batch, fed-batch and repeated-batch fermentation in a nonsterile system”; Kasetsart Journal – Natural Science; (46) 1-10, 2012.
  2. N.P. Patil, V.S. Patil; “Fuel Ethanol from Cane Molasses: A Review of Feedstock, Technologies, Oppturnities and challenges”; Journal of Natural Products and Resources; (3) 104-110, 2017.
  3. D.S.d.O. Marina, F.M. Rubens, M.E. Paulo, C. Otavio, R.V.E. Carlos, B. Antonio, L.V.L.R. Manoel; “Sugarcane processing for ethanol and sugar in Brazil”; Environmental development–Elsevier; (15) 35-51, 2015.
  4. A. Christian, C. Frederike, W. Matthias; “Membrane process in biorefinery application”; Journal of Membrane Science; (444) 285-317, 2013.
  5. L.L. Mario, P.L.d.C. Silene, G. Alexandra, C.A. Rudimar, L.S. Marcel, G.C.H. Fernando, B. D. Claudemir, N.A.d.B. Henrique, A.d.V. Henriue; “Ethanol production in Brazil: A bridge between science and industry”; Brazilian Journal of Microbiology; (166) 1-13, 2016.

​

75 of 77

References

  1. S.A.M. Mohammad, K. Ali; “Concentrating of sugar syrup in Bioethanol Production Using Sweeper Gas Membrane Distillation”; Membranes; 1-14, 2019.
  2. K.A. Anton, M.H. Vladimir; “Cyclic distillation technology – A New Challenger in Fluid Separations”; Chemical Engineering transaction; (69) 823-829, 2018.
  3. P.P. Nilesh, S.P Vilas, Shashikant, L. Bhole; “Molecular sieve dehydration : A major development in the field of ethanol dehydration to produce fuel ethanol”; Asian journal of science and technology; 07 (05) 2897-2902, 2016
  4. https://www.sugarprocesstech.com/ethanol-production/ (Accessed on 15-02-2021)
  5. https://m.economictimes.com/industry/energy/oil-gas/government-invites-public-comments-for-introducing-adoption-of-e20-fuel/amp_articleshow/79800560.cms (Accessed on 18-02-2021)
  6. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-hikes-ethanol-procurement-price-by-rs-1-95-nudges-mills-to-blending-120102901846_1.html (Accessed on 10-02-2021)
  7. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethanol (Accessed on 29-01-2021)

76 of 77

77 of 77